Bangladesh: how the prime minister, Sheikh Hasina, lost her grip on power
Bangladesh’s repressive leader has been forced out after 15 years in power.
Bangladesh’s student-led protesters marched to the country’s capital, Dhaka, en masse on Monday morning, defying a new curfew amid some of the worst violence Bangladesh has ever seen. Within hours the prime minister, Sheikh Hasina, had resigned and fled the country in a helicopter, bringing her 15 years in power to an abrupt end.
The army chief, Waker-Uz-Zaman, announced that he would be assuming control and, after discussions with political parties (excluding Hasina’s Awami League) and civil society groups, has promised to form an interim government. But whether a new government will address the protesters’ demands for state reform remains to be seen.
There is also concern about whether public anger against members of Hasina’s government can be contained. Protesters stormed and ransacked the prime minister’s official residence, while mobs reportedly torched some TV stations, attacked political leaders’ homes, and looted shops.
The situation does seem to have been brought back under control. And, as the dust settles, the question many are now asking is: how did this seemingly strong dictator fall from power so spectacularly and so quickly?
Hasina’s tenure has been marked by creeping repression that has gradually eroded her legitimacy. She secured a fourth straight term in January, for example, in an election so rigged it was boycotted by the main opposition party (whose top leadership have either been imprisoned or exiled).
It is within this context that students began to protest. The protests started peacefully in July with demands to abolish a controversial quota system that reserved government jobs for family members of freedom fighters from the 1971 war for independence from Pakistan. But they quickly turned into a wider anti-government movement that sought to oust the prime minister.
Many argue that this was fuelled by Hasina herself. She made casual remarks about the protesters being descendants of razakars, a word used to describe those who collaborated with the Pakistani army during the war.
And a few of her ministers began to suggest that the student wing of Hasina’s regime, the Chhatra League, was ready to counter the protesters. This was seen as a license for members of the Chhatra League to beat the peaceful student protesters, with police support. Soon the situation turned very violent.
The brutality of the crackdown was unprecedented, with gruesome videos of deaths and injuries shared on social media. There have been around 300 deaths in total (including 32 children), many more injuries, and thousands of arrests.
The use of live ammunition and helicopters against protesters shocked the nation, as did allegations that the police have destroyed hospital death registers to hide the true death toll.
Read more: Bangladesh protests: brutal security crackdown sparks calls for international probe
Hasina’s failure to show empathy or take action against the police only exacerbated public discontent. She was seen weeping over the damage caused to metro stations instead of the deaths of protesters.
The government has also refused to take any responsibility for the brutality of its security forces and has been willing to do and say anything to spin the narrative against the protesters. The police have even denied the killing of student activist Abu Sayed, despite video footage of him being shot at point blank range.
But what ultimately united the country was the deaths of protesters from all walks of life – from rickshaw pullers to the elite urban class. The whole narrative changed. Previously indifferent to political protests organised by opposition parties during Hasina’s tenure, the Bangladeshi people came together.
Political collapse
On Saturday, August 3, hundreds of thousands of people took to the streets in every city and town in Bangladesh after student leaders called for a nationwide “civil disobedience campaign” until Hasina’s government resigns.
The army had stepped in to help restore order following earlier protests. But this time around they were largely bystanders watching the protest rallies unfold.
The protests appear to have shattered the climate of fear that has long pervaded Bangladesh’s political landscape. Social media has been awash with memes, slogans and songs demanding the prime minister’s resignation.
This unprecedented outpouring of dissent, ranging from street protests to digital activism, signalled a significant erosion of the government’s control over public discourse. Temporary internet closures backfired, making people even angrier.
Even before the political unrest, the economic situation in Bangladesh was worsening. In May, the country’s reserves of foreign currency fell below US$19 billion (£15 billion) for the first time in 11 months.
A growing economy such as Bangladesh’s generally needs foreign currency reserves equivalent to six months worth of import bills. However, central bank officials said existing reserves would cover Bangladesh for just four months. This will leave the country struggling to import fuel and maintain its garment sector – the country’s largest export industry.
On top of this, on August 3 the student leaders asked Bangladeshi citizens to stop paying taxes and utilities bills, and to shut down factories and ports. They also called on the diaspora not to send remittances to Bangladesh as part of their bid to force a change of leadership. The potential for an economic shutdown only added to the uncertainty facing the country.
August 4 became the bloodiest day of all. At least 90 people were killed in Bangladesh as the police and members of the Chhatra League clashed with anti-government protesters once more.
In a statement released on Sunday, the UN’s human rights chief, Volker Türk, said: “The continuing effort to suppress popular discontent, including through the excessive use of force, and the deliberate spread of misinformation and incitement to violence, must immediately cease”.
The culmination of these factors left Hasina with no option but to resign, as public sentiment and economic instability converged to demand a change in leadership.
Shahzad Uddin does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.